Sudan. 102. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State has no system in place that can protect human rights in the overwhelming majority of cases. He points to examples of Amal Aba al-Ajab v. Government of Sudan case in which the Court refused to apply international human rights law.18 He also points to a similar situation in the case of Abdelraham et al v. Sudan, Case No. 7/98 of 13th August 1998. 19 103. The Complainant submits that the lack of independence of the judiciary is the result of several steps taken by the Sudanese Government since it came to power in 1989. He cites the reports of Mr Leonard Franco, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan as well as numerous non-governmental organisations to demonstrate the lack of independence of the judiciary in Sudan.20 104. The Complainant argues that although a new Constitution was adopted on 1st July 1998, the Executive still exercises broad powers over the Judiciary: Section 5 of the Constitutional decree 13/1995, entitled 'Powers of the President' provides that ... "the President shall be the Guardian of the Judiciary and the Council of Justice in accordance with the Constitution and the Law" , ... "A Judge shall be guided by the concept of supremacy of the Constitution, Law and general guidance of Sharia." Section 61 (1-3) provides that: "The Judiciary is responsible before the President for the performance of its functions effectively and honestly for the prevalence of justice; its function is to adjudicate fairly in constitutional, administrative, family, civil and criminal disputes and to exercise its judgment in accordance with the law." 105. The Complainant alleges that Sudan is ruled under a State of Emergency whereby the president exercises almost complete control over the executive, legislative and judicial functions. The Complainant alleges further that for the foregoing reasons, no adequate and effective remedies exist in Sudan that the refugees should be required to exhaust. 106. The Complainant submits that in the present case, the Respondent State has repeatedly denied the victims access to their legal representative, Dr Curtis F. J. Doebbler, by repeatedly refusing to grant him a visa to enter the country. The Government has also failed to make facilities available to the refugees, even when they are in custody, to contact their legal representative. 107. The Complainant rejected the submission by the Respondent State that redress by way of an appeal to the UNHCR or an appeal to the Sudanese Courts was available to the refugees. 108. He submitted that neither of these means of redress was adequate. An appeal to the UNHCR was ineffective because the refugees were denied legal representation. He argues that UNHCR decision makers refused to apply the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa. Secondly, appeals to the Sudanese Courts were not possible, because there was no decision made by a Sudanese administrative body. 109. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent State denied responsibility for the protection of Ethiopian refugees under its jurisdiction. 110. The Complainant stated that the Sudanese Government's position is in contrast to the position expressed by the Commission, that: "the Charter specifies in Article 1 that the State Parties shall not only recognise the rights, duties and freedoms adopted by the Charter, but they should also "undertake.....measures to give effect to them." Therefore, if a State neglects to ensure the rights in the African Charter, this can constitute a violation, even if the State or its agents are not the immediate cause of the violation.21 111. The Complainant submitted further that the process offered by the UNHCR was flawed in several serious matters. Despite repeated requests to represent the refugees in procedures before the UNHCR, the refugees were denied the right to legal representation. 112. The UNHCR recruited translators from the Ethiopian Embassy in Sudan to interview the Complainants. Because the procedures applied by UNHCR, did not apply the most basic standards of due process, it cannot be considered effective or adequate for protecting the rights of the refugees that are guaranteed in the African Charter. 113. Moreover, the Complainant submitted that the right to appeal from procedures that do not meet the standards of due process is illusionary and cannot be deemed an effective remedy. The refugees could not appeal a decision by the UNHCR to the Sudanese administrative bodies. Only administrative decisions made by Sudanese Government authorities may be appealed. The Government of Sudan itself admitted that it had nothing to do with the decision of the UNHCR. Consequently, there was no domestic remedy that could adequately and effectively protect the victims' human rights. 114. The Respondent State reiterated its position that the Complainant neither approached the UNHCR nor any court or administrative body to denounce the alleged violation of the rights of pre-1991 Ethiopian refugees. The Respondent State stressed that the Complainant could have challenged the manner in which 8